the chair: on this vote theys are 103. the noes are 322. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on

amendment number 25 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 25, printed in house report number 113-117, offered by mr. butterfield of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

you

the chair: the yeas are 123. the nays are 297. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 26 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 26, printed in house report number 113-117, offered by mr. marino of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.

those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 79. the nays are 346. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 30 printed in rt b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 30 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. schweikert of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the eas are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 194. the nays are 232. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 32 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tierney, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 32 printed in house

report 113-117 offered by mr. tierney of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 211 and the nays are 215. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 37 printed in rt b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 37 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise nd be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 225. the noes are 200. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 38 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 38, printed in house report number 113-117, offered by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 206. the nays are 219. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 41 printed in part b of house report 113-117

by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 41, offered by mr. marino of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 194. the noes are 230.

the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 43 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 43, printed in house report number 113-117, offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 156. the nays are 269. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 44 printed in part b of house report 113-117

by the gentleman from new york, mr. gibson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 44, printed in house report number 11-117 offered by mr. gibson of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a twin vote. -- two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 81 withthe nays one answering present. he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 45 printed in rt b of house report 113-117 by the gentlewoman from indiana, mrs. walorski, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 45, printed in house report 113-117 offered by mrs. walorski of indiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 197 and the nays are 227, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 46 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from connecticut, mr. fortney, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 46, printed in the house eport 113-117 offered by mr.

courtney of connecticut. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 208 and the nays are 218. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 47 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 47, printed in house eport 113-117 offered by mr. kind of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote has requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote -- the chair: the yeas are 208. the noes are 217. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 48, printed in

part b of house report 113-117, by the gentleman from delaware, mr. carney, and on which further proceedings were postponed on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b amendment number 48, printed in house report number 113-117, offered by mr. carney of delaware. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 174. the nays are 252. he amendment is not adopted.

the chair: the gentleman from texas. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to roy my request for recorded vote on amendment number 23. that the amendment stand rejected in accordance with the previous voice vote thereon. the chair: committee will be in order. the gentleman from texas. ask unanimousy: i consent to withdraw my request for recorded vote to the end the amendment stand rejected in accordance with the voice vote thereon. the clerk: part b amendment number 23, in house report number 113-117, offered by mr.

conaway from texas. the chair: the amendment stands rejected in accordance with the previous voice vote thereon. it is now in order to consider amendment number 99, print in house report number 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: to offer amendment number 99. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 9, printed in house report number 113-117, offered by mr. goodlatte of virginia. the chair: prosecution, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the member opposed, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to yield five minutes of my 10 minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, so he may manage that time. the chair: without objection.

the gentleman will suspend momentarily. he committee will be in order. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i recognize myself for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. likeoodlatte: mr. speaker, ranking member peterson, i have been closely involved in the debate to modernize our dairy system. at his request i joined him and other members to seek solution to fix our dairy safety net after our current programs failed our producers. we agree dairy farmers deserve access to a protection program to ensure their production, however i cannot support a dairy supply management program. that's why i have joined with congressman scott, congressman collins, congressman moran, congressman duffy, congressman polis, congressman coffman, congressman meeks, congressman meeks, congresswoman degette,

and congresswoman lee and congressman issa and sessions, to take it out and substitute what we have in our other commodities programs, that is an insurance program that will save the taxpayers money, will save the consumers a lot of money, and not have a policy where we are actually having the government go to dairy farmers and say if you want to get your check, you've got to reduce the size of your herd. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: who claims time in opposition? the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: mr. chair, i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. peterson: i'd recognize the gentleman from california, who -- new member who is actually been in the dairy business and probably the one guy in this place that understands how this works. two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. valadao: mr. speaker, this

has been a tough one for me because i am the only dairy farmer in this room. it's been a tough issue because i have lived it for the last 15 years. and i have seen how programs created by this body have hurt dairy farmers. and there's been a lot of programs eliminated in this current farm bill. it's a good thing. it takes us in a more market oriented direction. what i see here is we are continuing that same path in a small way. this margin insurance by definition is an insurance when you lose money. you lose money because you are -- you are producing a product consumers aren't buying. we have to have -- if government's going to continue to push money in that direction, we have to make sure they don't continue to produce that product consumers don't want. the argument that people are going to -- miss out on an opportunity to export, if there is an export market and they are producing for that they will sell that product. you can't have a subsidized product coming into the marketplace and want to grow that export market, again, on a subsidized product because you can't continue to produce that product for that price. if we can't compete, we shouldn't be producing it.

if it's going to require that margin insurance to make sure it's produced, it's not a long-term market, it's not a stable market, it's not something we should spend millions of dollars, billions of dollars investing in infrastructure that will not compete. so i think that at the end of the day that this is probably the best program. we have gotten rid of the -- a lot of programs. with this one there is a choice. if they choose to take an opportunity to protect their margins so they can stay afloat because we have to protect american products and make sure that consumers aren't buying the safe -- are buying the safest and greatest product in the world. but you can't have them continue to produce that product in the name of exports or the name of whatever. at the end of the day the consumers pay for it because consumers are taxpayers. if you are going to give them money on the backside out of their back pocket through taxes, are you again paying for that product. the product still has to be paid for. dairy farmers have to make a profit. it has to be the right way. if they are going to get that

dollar to continue to produce that product that consumers aren't buying, there has to be somewhere along the line where they cut back and contract on the market. i rise in opposition. mr. goodlatte has been a friend of mine and i have watched from afar and appreciate everything he's done for the industry over the years. i strongly rise in opposition to this amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. first i'd like to ask for one minute for the gentleman from maryland, mr. moran. -- from virginia. sorry. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: the chair knows it's the gentleman from virginia. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of this amendment. it's a very complicated issue. and i have great respect for our ranking member. but it does seem that we ought to be removing government production limits from our dairy program. expanding distribution markets throughout the world is one of the best ways to grow american

business and create jobs. and that should be one of the roles of government, to remove barriers to expansion and growth. the fact is that the world demand for dairy products is growing at a faster rate than milk production increases in those regions that grow - -- produce the most milk like new zealand and australia. it's the u.s. dairy industry that's best positioned to been fit -- benefit from that growing world demand. but this export growth limitation is threatened by the dairy market stabilization program in this bill because this provision in this bill gives usda the ability to require every dairy producer enrolled in any level of margin insurance protection to reduce production to meet supply quotas. can i have another 15 seconds? mr. scott: another 15 seconds. mr. moran: the result of the provision in this bill is that domestic dairy producers would be constrained in their ability

to respond to international market opportunities. and that results in lower growth and fewer american jobs. it's this type of supply management plan that's failed in previous farm bills and would have a dangerous effect of stifling export growth. so that's why i ask support for the goodlatte amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: mr. chairman, i'm now pleased to yield to one of our ranking members, the gentleman from california, mr. costa, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. two minutes. mr. costa: thanks very much, mr. speaker. the dairy security act in this bill is a result of four years of hard work on a bipartisan basis. it's intended to provide strong market-based safety net that will keep dairy producers afloat while providing stable prices to our consumers. simply put, the amendment being offered here, the goodlatte-scott amendment is about putting american taxpayers

fully paying the bill for down prices that occur in down cycles in the dairy industry. the dairy industry, especially producers, have been victims of these down cycles and volatility in recent years because the old programs simply don't work. and they encourage overproduction. at the same time, producers have been forced to deal with increased feed costs that have increased from $2 a bushel to $7 a bushel. further impacting their bottom line. the goodlatte-scott amendment will neither provide a safety net for producers nor prevent the volatility in the market because of unpredictable swings. . and it's important to understand reform is in the bill. this amendment would put the taxpayers footing the bill for the insurance program. this amendment will continue to go through the outdated tired dairy programs that haven't worked.

in california, my home state, the nation's leading dairy state in the nation, we've seen over 100 bankruptcies in the last 18 months. the current program isn't good for the dairy men and women, nor is it good for american consumers. the dairy security act not only provides more stability for the producer, but consumer benefits as well and you should understand this is voluntary. if you want to grow, you can grow. if you don't want to enter the program, you don't have to enter the program. it is voluntary. i strongly urge as a third generation dairy family in california my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to bring our federal dairy policies into the 21st century so dairy men and women can compete and american consumers can have milk prices at reasonable levels. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. >> mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin, america's dairy land, with more dairy farms than any otherny -- than any other in the country,

mr. ribble. mr. ribble: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i appreciate the comments from dayow, my colleague from california, earlier, -- mr. valadao, my colleague from california earlier, when he said he didn't have enough consumers to buy the milk. we have the opposite problem in wisconsin. people want wisconsin cheese and milk. it shows the geographical difficulty with this problem and with the underlying bill. mr. goodlatte seeks to correct those geographical differences by taking the most controversial piece of it out. and i stand here in support of doing that. our founders kind of instructed us, they said, if you can find agreement in this chamber, do those things. but if you can't find agreement and we can't find agreement here, don't do those things. so what mr. goodlatte is trying to do is go to the place where we have the most and most broad agreement. leaving the margin insurance helmet in place for farmers but stripping out the supply management element where some regions of the country would be damaged by it. i support the goodlatte amendment because it's the right type of reform for all of

wisconsin and all of this country's dairy producers and processors, not one or the other but both. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. >> i'm now pleased to recognize the gentleman from vermont, one of our hard workers on this issue, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: the question facing this congress is, will we have a farm bill that respects farm families? this is about individual families that are working hard to try to survive, not to get rich. market stabilization is exactly what apple computer does. if they make and sell more ipods, they produce more. if sales go down, they taper off. why not give that market signal to our farmers? with second, third, fourth-generation families in vermont, the kenneth family, the richardson family, the rowell family. all they want to do is produce good, nutritious milk for the

people in their community. this market stabilization gets them out of the death spiral where they have absolutely no control over what that price is. and when it plunges, the only opportunity they have to try to survive is to increase production, the price goes down again. this market stabilization is using the market. it's an ally of the farmer, as it should be. so, this makes sense. and what i am so proud of is that america's farmers, from vermont to california, work together to come up for something that would help pass that farm on to the next generation and it saves money for the taxpayers. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me correct one thing. the goodlatte-scott amendment has a very robust safety net program. mr. scott: as a matter of fact, it's the same safety net program that is in the bill itself. let me make one other point right quick, mr. chairman. with the recent study by

professor scott brown from the university of missouri, put in a study that showed if this plan in this bill, this management supply bill, goes into effect, in the first month alone school nch program costs will go up $14 million and the price of a gallon of milk will go up 32 cents. and with that you can mr. chairman, i'd like to -- and with that, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, mrs. barbara lee -- ms. barbara lee. ms. lee: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment which i'm proud to co-sponsor. the underlined farm bill, this will have negative consequences for consumers and that's why the consumer federation of america, the national consumers league, the consumers union and other consumer groups, also the teamsters, oppose the underlying language in this bill and support this amendment. and when milk prices increase at

disproportionately -- it disproportionately harms america's poor working families. there's lot in this bill that i cannot support, including the heartless cuts to snap. without this amendment this bill adds insult to injury. without this amendment 246,000 women and children will lose access to milk because of the decrease of mitt supply and also prices -- milk supply and also prices, as representative from georgia has so eloquently laid out. the milk prices will rise about 32 cents. so this amendment protects families whose budgets are already stretched to the limit and they're being already cut in this bill. so i hope that people understand this bill, there's been a lot of confusion. but this is a good bill that consumers support, the teamsters support, and i urge an aye vote on -- excuse me, on the amendment, not the bill, but the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: mr. chairman, i'm going to take 30 seconds right now that i'm go -- then i'm going to reserve because i'm ahead but i need to stand up and say that this is not true.

scott brown put out a study on this bill, and they said the effect of this is going to be a half a cent a gallon. maybe a couple cents a gallon. so where they're coming up with this 30 cents or 50 cents, i have no idea. this is a complete fabrication that's made up out of something that i don't know where it comes from. so people need to understand that. if the scott brown is probably the most respected economist in dairy in the country. and he did not say it was 30 cents or 50 cents. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, what mr. brown said was up to 32 cents a gallon. at this time i'm happy to yield to the gentleman from kansas, mr. huelskamp, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. huelskamp: thank you. mr. speaker, i appreciate the opportunity to visit on this. i do believe in an individual's right to earn a living, start a business, to earn a profit, to grow that business and to expand to meet new market opportunities without government interference. and i also believe that should

be specifically available to dairy farmers as well. but in the dairy program before us today, that flies in the face of this right. government should not have the power to tell dairy farmers that they won't be paid for the milk they produce. i think it's completely hypocritical for members of this body to come do the floor and rail against market manipulation by big business, then turn around and say washington should do the same thing. we should support the goodlatte-scott amendment. we should pose government control and interference in the market place and we should support dairy freedom, growth and opportunity. there are numerous dairy families across this country but one in particular in high district, mccarthy family, please, let them have the opportunity to grow their business. give them that chance. if we adopt the language as-is, it will restrict the ability for them to grow their business. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia.

mr. scott: i would like now to recognize the distinguished lady from colorado, ms. degette, for one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for within minute. ms. degette: thank you, mr. speaker. -- in this bill to impact low-income families' access to food. the u.s. government purchases 20% of domestic milk production for use in anti-hunger programs. so if the price of milk goes up, so does the cost of our nutrition programs like the supplemental nutrition program, special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children or the w.i.c. program, and the national school lunch program. everybody admits that the effect of the underlying language in the bill will be to raise milk prices. and this is a burden that our low-income families simply cannot afford. we need a balance. we need a balance that will give a safety net to our dairy families but won't take it off of the backs of our low-income folks. so i would urge a yes vote on

this amendment. just like the consumer federation of america and so many other groups that mislead -- that ms. lee talked about, this is a good thing for consumers and meshes and we should have that balance -- americans and we should have that balance. vote yes, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i'm now pleased to yield to the gentlelady from washington, mrs. delbene, one minute. ms. delbene: i rise in strong opposition to the goodlatte-scott amendment which would create unnecessary market volatility and uncertainty for our farmers. the dairy security ability creates a new voluntary insurance program and will help consumer by eliminating the price spikes that are common today, ensuring stable milk prices. there has been a great deal of misinformation about how the dairy security act would affect consumers, but researchers like dr. brown from the university of missouri estimate milk prices would only rise between one half of one cent to a few cents per gallon. the current volatility in the

market is far more harmful to consumers than that very slight increase. simply put, it is poor policy to commit funds to a dairy program without fixing the underlying problem of oversupply. which is what this amendment would do. in insurance-only model poorly addresses the symptom of low margins and completely miss -- misses the issue of supply and demand. the stabilization program also has safeguards that will protect the u.s. export market which is critical for dairy producers. in my district, that had long conversations with local dairy farmers, been to their farms and the sentiment is unanimous. dairy farmers oppose this amendment because it will hurt them and consumers and i urge my colleagues to follow their advice and vote no. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. grimm, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. grimm: thank you, chairman. today i rise in strong support of the goodlatte-scott amendment. the farm bill as-is artificially

increases the price of milk and cheese. and where i come from, this will devastate my local delis, my specialty food stores, restaurants throughout staten island, brooklyn, and throughout our nation. as for oversupply, today new york is america's yogurt capital. that industry accounts for almost $1 billion, with a b, in economic growth, revenue and 15,000 jobs. yet while we repeatedly talk bout jobs, entrepreneurship, yogurt exemplifies this. started in 2005, chobani transformed a ground breaking new industry of greek yogurt in america. but without aned a quality milk supply at reasonable prices, them, local dellies, other companies will have a limited ability to grow and keep their products reasonably priced. for this reason, i urge my colleagues to support the goodlatte amendment. thank you and yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i'm now pleased to yield to the gentleman from new york, one of our good champions of the dairy industry. the chair: how much time? mr. peterson: one minute. mr. owens: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank mr. grimm for mentioning the yogurt industry. that is very prominent in my district and we supply milk to many of the yogurt plants. there is no question that this bill would negatively impact mr. goodlatte's amendment would negatively impact that while the security act would have a positive impact on our ability to supply milk to a growing industry that does in fact create jobs. i rise in support of this -- of the dairy security act and opposed to this amendment because it represents four years of bipartisan compromise worked out between mr. lucas and mr. peterson and those are the kinds

of activities we should be doing in this congress. thank you very much and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: mr. chairman, i now recognize the distinguished lady from florida, ms. brown, for one moment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. and to the members of the house, let me be clear, i will not be voting for this bill. i will vote for no bill that cuts $20.5 billion from the snap program. but i will be voting for this amendment. this amendment -- we had a hideous bill on the floor a couple of days ago and i want to be clear, i support all children nd it does not end in birth. it is ludicrous that we're here, , the dy-goody-two-shoes attack on children, the family

of three can earn no more than $24,000 per year in income. 76% of the snap household include a child, a elderly person or a disabled person. because of this insensitivity of this congress, there was an announcement in my paper that meals on wheels for seniors are being cut. i am fighting for babies who need milk, families that cannot afford food for their children, support this amendment and vote against this bad bill. . the chair: the chair would inform the members the gentleman from minnesota has two minutes remaying. the gentleman from virginia has one minute remaying. the gentleman from georgia's time has expired. mr. peterson: i yield to my colleague from minnesota, mr. walz, for 30 seconds. mr. walz: thank you, mr. chairman. dairy farming is risky business. these are the folks that are up at 4:00 a.m., rain, shine, snow, sleet, doesn't matter. seven days a week, 365 days a

year, milking cows, doing it again 12 hours later thefment don't get sick time and paid holidays. they don't get no time off. the one thing we could provide them in certainty and take the volatility out of the market to make sure when they have a bad year we don't end up liquidating these, consolidating into large dairies and harming the very people that the people who support this amendment claim to support. i ask my colleagues reject this amendment, do the right thing for these hardworking americans. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: at this time i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from ohio, a member of the agriculture committee to close our debate, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise in support of this amendment. this amendment build on the reforms of the underlying bill and scraps the proposed supply management program. doing so will allow farmers and dairy producers to expand and meet the growing global demand of american dairy products. it will grow our experts and economy. it also will protect families and farmers. families are already having

enough trouble making ends meet. mr. gibbs: this amendment will help bring down prices for our constituents by providing more opportunity to dairy farmers. it will save taxpayers dollars. this amendment saves taxpayers another $15 million on top of the savings in the underlying bill. every penny counts. this amendment will create a better and more market driven policy for our farmers. supply management is not the way to go. i support the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota has two minutes remaining. mr. peterson: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peterson: hasegawa been said, we have been working on this for four years. clearly the current policy doesn't work because we got all this volatility. if you adopt this goodlatte-scott amendment, you will continue to have that volatility. those people concerned about the price of milk, when we had high prices, the processors raised the prices, when the prices collapsed to $11 they didn't cut the prices. i have sent out charts to you to explain that.

what people need to understand is what we are trying to do here is given farmers a way to protect themselves against the feed costs and this volatility. now, this program is voluntary. nobody has to get into this program. they don't like the stabilization fund, they don't have to take the insurance. they don't have to be involved in it. what we are saying is if you are going to have the government subsidize your insurance, which is what we are doing, then you are going to have to be responsible if this thing gets out of whack. what the goodlatte-scott amendment does is it puts that responsibility on the taxpayers. not on the farmers. which is irresponsible in my opinion. so -- the other thing you need to understand, in regular crop insurance the prices -- you can only insure the price for that year. but in this bill, in the goodlatte-scott bill, you insure the price not based on what the market s. based on the feed costs plus the margin. you are going to ensure milk for $18 100 weight.

the farmer can still have the insurance. he doesn't care if it's $11. the government will pay for that. not him. this is a crazy thing we are talking about doing here. and we are putting the responsibility on the taxpayer. we are actually probably going to raise cost to consumers. it's the wrong way to go. and i urge my colleagues to oppose the goodlatte-scott amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 -- on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: on that i ask the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. goodlatte: i do. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. mr. polis: on the amendment to the record. he chair: under general leave.

it is now in order it consider amendment 100, printed in part b-of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? mr. fortenberry: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b amendment number 100, printed in house report number 113-117, offered by mr. fortenberry of nebraska. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from nebraska, mr. for then berry, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska. mr. for then berry: first, i would like to begin by wreck -- mr. fortenberry: first i would like to begin by recognizes the hard work put in this bill. a complex bill like this takes time and willingness to work with members from a very diverse range of agricultural communities across this nation. i appreciate the effort. i also recognize that many were here very late last night and there is a certain urgency to

our deliberations. i believe it is critically important we also have a meaningful discussion and a debate on the issue of payment limits. the other legislative body has seen fit to include language in this amendment in its version of the farm bill. and this amendment gives us the opportunity to send a message that some reform in this area is necessary. while there is much to commend in this farm bill, mr. chairman, i am concerned that it falls short of successfully reforming the payment limit system. without a doubt, agricultural payments are lobsided. based on the usda's resource manage the survey, the largest 12% of farms in terms of gross receipts receive more than 62% of all government payments in 2009. such a skewed system, mr. chairman, is simply not sustainable in the long run. it leads to the escalation of land prices. and accelerates the concentration of land and resource noose fewer hands. this is not healthy for rural america. continuation of the current system will only lead to greater concentration in agriculture and

fewer opportunities for younger and beginning farmers. we need a thoughtful and balanced approach here. one that encourages young people to take a chance and gives them some support when they need it. one that doesn't lend itself to the trend of fewer and fewer farms. mr. chairman, we pride ourselves that agriculture is the main bright spot in america's economy. and how did we get here? by ensuring that we have a vibrant marketplace which depends upon large numbers of producers actively engaged in stewardship of the land. the amendment i am offering will help farms support reach their intended recipients as well and close loopholes that benefit investors not actively engaged in farming. it levels the playing field for farm families facing competition from larger operations that do collect the lion's share of government payments. the amendment reduces farm payment limits. capping commodity payments at $250,000 for any one farm. that's a lot of subsidy. the legislation will also close

loopholes in the current law to ensure payments reach their intended recipient. that is working farmers. the savings from reforms established in this legislation help ensure that the payment is also set on a more fiscally sustainable trajectory. it's fair to the farmers, taxpayer, and america because it incorporates good governing principles. this amendment has wide support from a diverse range of agricultural groups such as the national farmers union, center for rural affairs, national sustainable agricultural coalition, heritage action, and citizens against government waste. they recognize the opportunity we have for meaningful reform here. now, it is important, mr. chairman, to emphasize that this does not address crop insurance subsidies. that is a completely separate matter and i recognize the need to differentiate between a program which must -- producers must contribute their own dollars toward the actuarial success of the program to one that is directly coming from the government. mr. chairman, i have been through two farm bills now and i

have talked to hundreds of farmers in rural america. what they are looking for is simply a chance to compete and compete well, not a guarantee of unlimited money from the government. we owe it to our hardworking farmers to sustain that fair and robust marketplace. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who claims time? he gentleman from -- the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lucas: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conaway: i stand in strong opposition to this amendment. one particular troubling issue is redefinition active engaged in farming. this will alter fundamentally the normal operations on a farm. take two quick examples. a brother and sister. the sister runs the tractors, plants the crops, harvests. the brother does the bookkeeping, files tax returns,

raises the loans at the bank. he would no longer be considered actively engaged in farming. that makes no sense whatsoever. the broader spread is the generational shift in farming operations of the as parents age, grandparents age, they take less of a role in farming operations and hand that off to the younger generation. the folks my good colleague was speaking to. this would say as they age out and quit doing physical labor, yet their wisdom and knowledge and vast experience is added to the success of those farming operation, they would no longer be considered actively engaged in farming and be excluded from the programs itself. this is wrong-headed. it adds additional regulatory burdens on family farms across this country in an unnecessary manner and doesn't get to what my good colleague is trying to get to. i would strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and vote no on the fortenberry amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from nebraska.

mr. fortenberry: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. fortenberry: i'm not out to punish anyone's success. i celebrate it. $250,000 subsidy is a lot of money from the government. i think many americans would agree. we put caps and limits on virtually every other program. so why not this one? what i am saying is that amendment of money should be sufficient. i would like to offer another example regarding direct engagement in farming that helps clarify the issue my colleague just raised. a farm in the deep south recently received $440,000, again from -- none of it to someone actually working the farm, but to six general partners and spouses, all of whom claim to be providing the management needed to running the farm. what this bill does in addition to capping payments, it provides a more enforceable working

definition for those actively engaged in farm management. and that's an important reform as well. again, this has been worked out in the other legislative body from producers -- members who represent the first agricultural districts all over this country. i think this is a reasonable reform that, again, is fair to the taxpayer, fair to the farm family, and consistent with good governing principles. it's a balanced, reasonable approach. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i yield to the subcommittee chairman of the ag committee from arkansas, mr. crawford, 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. chairman. i respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment. in order for farmers in my district to compete, their operations must be economies of scale. this is largely due to the high cost of production, expensive machinery, and razor thin margins. in order to remain economically viable, the mid south farmer must produce a high quantity of crops and sell it at an adequate price it doesn't always work out well. some years a farmer might do very well if conditions are

right and prices don't drop too low. other years times can be brutal. this amendment takes the wrong approach because it adds even more uncertainty to the farmer's operation. most farmers go to the bank for loans to pay production costs and purchase of new technology and machinery. once you introduce a restrictive a.g.i. it becomes much more difficult to obtain the financing necessary to sustain an operation and stay in business. through a careful approach the ag committee has brought significant reform to agi emingibility. we don't need to go a step further. additionally requiring an on farm--active labor is counterproductive. it discourages the participation of young farmers. and that could mean they are out of a job. farm owners and operators need to focus their attention on the management of the overall farm. i strongly urge the defeat of this amendment. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield the gentleman from georgia, mr. barrow, one minute.

the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. barrow: i thank the gentleman for the time. i rise in opposition to the amendment. farming in 2013 can be a very complicated, high tech, and high risk business. for example, there are many farmers in my district who farm thousands of acres they don't own. they might grow cotton, peanuts, grains, and specialty crops. they need a whole fleet of different equipment for each one of these crops. they are probably irrigating a whole lot of the crops. they likely employ dozens of people. these might be multimillion dollar enterprises but they still fit the definition of a family farm. it takes that scale to be sustainable. and many farmers simply cannot afford to farm op that scale unless they have a safety net that can cover their risk. this bill includes sustainable reforms of our farm safety net to make sure it's available to the people who need it most. it's not fair. nor in our best interest to limit the participation of these larger family farms by undercutting their safety net. as this amendment would do. we need these farmers and they need us. i therefore urge my colleagues

to oppose the amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: might i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/4 minutes remaining. the chair: i yield 1 serb 1/4 minutes to mr. peterson. the chair: the gentleman from is recognized for 1 1/4 minutes. mr. peterson: i rise in opposition to this amendment. . if you like the department of labor's overreach on childhood labor, when they prevented 4-h kids from helping mom and dad on the farm, you're going to love this amendment. what this amendment does is puts bureaucrats in charge of deciding who is a farmer and who isn't. and when we put this a.g.i. test on, they develop 430 pages of regulations to try to figure out how to implement that. and if this amendment passes, i would be hard-pressed to figure out how many pages of regulations they're going to come up with to try to figure out whether you're actually a farmer or not. we're changing this actively engaged definition which we've been struggling with for years,

which i think we did a pretty good job with in 2008, putting in new requirements, new tests, sufficient you have -- we don't even understand how it's going to work. and i think it's just going to totally screw up the safety net, especially for our friends in the south that have a different situation than we do up in my part of the world. so this is an overreach, it's getting into areas that we've never done before, with payment limitations, at a time when we're changing these programs and we don't even really understand how this would work, other than to know it's going to really screw things up. so, i would strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. fortenberry: i ask for a record vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 101 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? mr. huelskamp: thank you, mr. chairman, i rise to speak on this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk? mr. huelskamp: yes, i do. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment 101, printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. huelskamp of kansas. the chair: the gentleman from kansas, mr. huelskamp, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas. mr. huelskamp: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield as much time as i might consume. thank you. i rise today along with several of my colleagues to offer what we believe should be the first step in serious reform of the snap program. also known as food stamps. it has been said we should judge the success of government programs not by the number of people receiving the benefits, but by the number of people who

no longer need them. as a result of the bipartisan work reforms and the tanf program in 1996, after that period we saw a 57% reduction in the number of people on tanf. this amendment would take the most successful welfare reform in the history of this country, sign it into law -- signed into law by president clinton and passed by a republican congress, and applies it to now the largest means-tested assistance program we have. and that's what that amendment would do. in addition to that, we would have additional reforms in terms of liheap and a few other items that would provide additional savings in the food stamp program. and with that i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i am opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman claim time in opposition? mr. lucas: yes, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i would like to yield to the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore, two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes.

ms. moore: thank you, mr. chairman. i speak in opposition to this amendment. this is really a very poorly con received amendment that would require all nondisabled individuals participate in job search every month or immediately lose benefits, even if the individual is already working on even if the individual is a child, a minor. this amendment would increase to $31 cuts by 50% billion instead of the $21.5 billion. it would immediately subject two million jobless, childless adults to harsh benefit cuts. it would slash benefits for two million people, about $90 a month. it would eliminate all the snap employment and training funds, eliminate nutrition education, impose new job search requirements on all people, even

if they're working. and it would send people into deep -- into a deep, deep depression. i think that this is an amendment that we should oppose. and i would yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from kansas. mr. huelskamp: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to yield one minute to a member of the ag committee, mr. neugebauer. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. neugebauer: i thank the gentleman and what this amendment -- i rise in strong support of it. in fact, part of the language of a bill that i had introduced is incorporated into this bill and i appreciate the gentleman for including that. what is this amendment about? it's about making sure that people that are on these programs qualify for them. that they're not automatically put on them because they're on some other program. it's also about reducing duplicative programs in the government. such as nutrition education and job training. we have job training in other parts -- in other programs. but more importantly, what the

american people understand is that our entitlement programs are growing at an unsustainable rate. and so we need to make sure that people that are on food stamps are actively looking for work. i don't think anybody argues with that. the second thing is, is making sure that people on this program are the people that need it and, secondly, that they qualify for it. so this is a commonsense amendment and the american taxpayers deserve this kind of accountability. anything less is unacceptable. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i reserve the balance of my time, mr. chairman. mr. huelskamp: mr. chairman, i now yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee, one minute. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. this is yet another heartless cut on the backs of hungry families aye all across america. how much is enough -- families all across america. how much is enough for those who

are relentless in attacking low-income families and hungry children? cutting over $20 billion in snap benefits is bad enough. but this amendment would add insult to injury. this is mind boggling. let me tell you, i know from personal experience, no one wants to be on food stamps. many who are on snap are hardworking people making minimum wage. and others are desperately looking for a job in these difficult economic times. this amendment demands that hungry families search for a job even while it eliminates all employment assistance and job training funds for those very families. let's not pretend that by making a family suffer more hunger and more desperation and more hardship that a job will suddenly appear for them. so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this very, very heartless, cruel and inhumane amendment. thank you and yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. huelskamp: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i yield to the gentleman from minnesota

15 seconds. mr. peterson: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to this amendment. we have worked this out between thishairman and myself and is breaking the deal that we had. and i would say a vote for this amendment is a vote against the farm bill. so oppose it. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. huelskamp: may i inquire the balance of my time? the chair: the gentleman from kansas has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from oklahoma has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. huelskamp: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate waiting on a few other folks to speak. but one thing i would like to point out, i appreciate the arguments of my colleague from texas, that indicates these are commonsense reforms. i think most americans agree, let's help folks that are in need, but we probably shouldn't help those who don't actually qualify for food stamps. with the adoption of this amendment, will are -- it will require folks who would like to receive food stamps, snap benefits, would have to qualify

for them, instead of being qualified through another program. it was also noted about the impact of these reforms and their potential impact on cuts. let's look at a little history of this particular program. 2002, in the 2002 farm bill $270 billion was the spending level. $270 billion. in the 2008 farm bill it was approximately $400 billion. if this amendment is adopted, the spending level would be $733 billion. only in washington could you say going from $270 billion to $733 billion is a cut. these are commonsense reforms. these a few decades ago were considered bipartisan reforms, to encourage people to look for work. to encourage people to get a job. i agree with my colleagues. there isn't a person in america i don't think that wouldn't rather have a paycheck rather

than a snap check. or a snap card or a vision card, if you're in the state of kansas. these are very commonsense reforms. they will work, they're good for americans, they're good for taxpayers and they're good for the people receiving benefits. we have 47 million americans receiving food stamps today. please, let's ask them, require them to actually go out and look for a job. they might actually find them. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: does the gentleman from kansas have the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma has the right to close. mr. lucas: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kansas. mr. huelskamp: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i yield myself what time i may have remaining. the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. chairman. colleagues, the process of crafting this farm bill has entailed much effort by the committee. we've looked at everything within our jurisdictions.

we've come up with ways of saving money and reforming things and making things more efficient across the board. in every title. let me touch for just a moment on the nutrition title. the committee agreed to $20.5 billion in savings. ending categorical eligibility. compelling states to the tune of $8 billion worth of savings, to make adjustments in how they address liheap. we have gone a tremendous distance in a bipartisan way to achieve the first real reform since 1996. now, i appreciate my colleagues' efforts to try and increase those savings. but i say to you, the number in the bill is workable. it is something that we can achieve. it is something that i believe, and we don't all necessarily see eye-to-eye on this, i believe that will still allow those

folks who are qualified under federal law to receive the help they need, they deserve. please turn this amendment back. please move forward with the reforms we have. let's do things that we've not been able to do since 1996. let's not go so far that nothing is the end result. defeat the amendment, support the bill, let us move forward. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. huelskamp: mr. chairman, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. huelskamp: yes. the chair: fur fur, further proceedings -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 102 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. southerland: mr. chairman, i rise to speak on behalf of my amendment. the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk? mr. southerland: yes, sir. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment 102, printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. southerland of florida. the chair: the gentleman from florida, mr. southerland, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. southerland: thank you, mr. chairman. the numbers don't lie. america's welfare system is broken. food stamp benefits have tripled in the past decade. there are more americans living in poverty today than when the war on poverty was launched a half century ago. instead of incentivizing work, we are reinforcing the same government dependency and cyclical poverty that we all wish to eliminate.

it is clear that an important variable has been missing from america's anti-poverty equation and that is the element of work. history has proven that work is the surest way to empower abled-bodied americans to advance from welfare to self-sufficiency. when a republican-controlled congress and a democrat president join together to pass welfare reform, requiring work, the results were dramatic. nationwide welfare rolls dropped by 67%. in my home state of florida, the number was higher, approximately 85%. work participation by never-married single moms and household earnings skyrocketed. child poverty rates plummeted. this true, bipartisan success story is what my amendment is based upon. our amendment empowers the states to require work for supplemental nutrition assistance program or snap benefits. we apply the same sensible work

preparation, job training and community service activities that are at the heart of welfare reform. our plan is endorsed by several states, human services secretaries who approached us -- states' human services secretaries who approached us. because they understand how important work can be for individuals truly in need. the simple fact is that work works. we must have a system in place that provides a helping hand to the most vulnerable among us. by requiring work for abled-bodied snap recipients, we can ensure that the resources get to those in need more effectively and efficiently. i encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting my amendment and renewing the god-given opportunity for earned success in america. mr. chairman, with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: i'd like to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. moore: despite what we heard from the author of this program, there's no work in this bill. this bill would more appropriately -- this amendment would more appropriately be lled the state bonuses for terminating snap benefits for those trying to find work and children, disabled people, yes, and even disabled veterans. i think the most egregious thing about this amendment is that there's no funding for work or training programs in this amendment at all, even though we're ordering people to do it. and there is a perverse incentive for states to end snap benefits for people because suddenly food stamps or snap benefits become fungible. we just rejected an amendment in the last series of votes

that would allow people to get toothpaste and tooth brushes with snap benefits. what this amendment does, it allows the state to pock these sanctions and -- pocket these sanctions and use it for whatever they want, to balance the budget with it, to convert snap benefits into tax breaks for corporations or for wealthy people. and with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. southerland: thank you, mr. chairman. i now yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, majority leader cantor, who represents a state that as a result of the 1996 work requirement, welfare rolls were reduced by over 84%. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. cantor: i thank the chairman and i thank the gentleman from florida. mr. chairman, i rise in support of this amendment. in 1996, the congress came together in a bipartisan way to change the incentives structure

in our basic cash welfare program that helps needy families. the results were nothing but a success. within five years welfare caseloads fell by more than 60%, and the economic prospects of many former welfare families were substantially improved. america saw an increased earning by low-income families and significant reductions in child poverty. the incentives were right, and even in the depths of the worst economic turmoil of a few years ago, the reforms were succeeding at moving families from dependency into work. those changes made in welfare reform resulted from a foundation laid before 1996 where states experimented with different approaches to determine which ones were the most effective at increasing work force participation and boosting earnings.

prior to enactment of welfare reform, states had been given waivers of the old law to become laboratories of innovation. the amendment by mr. southerland before us today builds on that successful approach and will give states the opportunity to test whether the same successful strategies that we used that were used in cash welfare programs in the 1990's will help food stamp recipients gain and retain employment and boost their earnings today. mr. southerland's amendment provides for a pilot program which will allow states, if they choose, to apply the tanf able equirements to their caseload. states have came forward asking us to be in this pilot process.

if we don't adopt this amendment, these states won't launch this. this takes into consideration the availability of childcare for mothers with young children and hardship situations like families facing domestic violence. the southerland amendment also tells states if they're successful at increasing work participation and families earnings among the food stamp caseload, they will share in the savings that would otherwise end up in the hands of the federal government. if enacted, this amendment will help reduce federal expenditures, provide assistance to the states and most importantly it will help struggling families who find themselves relying on public assistance to get back on their feet. right now many american families are struggling, and the snap program is in place to help these families who find

themselves in dire economic circumstances. while this program is an important part of our safety net, our overriding goal should be to help our citizens with the education and skills they need to get back on their feet so that they can provide for themselves and their families. i'd like to thank the gentleman from florida, mr. southerland, for his hard work on this issue, and i urge my colleagues to support his amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: i'd like to inquire how much time i have remaining. the chair: the gentlelady has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: for the gentleman to keep saying that the 1996 welfare reform was successful doesn't make it so. poverty has increased among women and children, a quarter of the children in this country are poor. so with that i'd yield two

minutes to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment which the effect would be to increase hunger and hardship across america. we have experienced the most devastating recession since the great depression. unemployment is at 7.5%. one in seven people today are availing themselves of food stamps because they have to. people are struggling in our economy today. they want to work. they cannot find a job. everybody experiencing that in their own -- everybody is experiencing that in their own communities. this amendment would allow an unlimited number of states to require adults to receive or even apply for food stamps to be working or in job training or else they lose their food stamp benefits. why would a state want to do

this? because the amendment also allows state to keep part of the savings from cutting people off of the program, use the money for whatever purpose the state officials want. instead of feeding people with those dollars, states can cut taxes for companies or even maybe support special interest subsidies. and included, as my colleague said, there is no funding in this bill for the creation of jobs. and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have refused to deal with the issue of job creation and there is no worker training in this bill. so there's no funding to do what they would like to do. let's take the crop insurance program, my friends. we just voted on an amendment that voted down reforming that program. we have 26 individuals in this nation -- we can't find out who they are. they get at least $1 million in a subsidy, $1 million in a subsidy. do you think they're eating well? three squares are are better a day.

and you know what, they have no income threshold, no asset test, no cap. they don't even have to farm the land and they don't have to follow conservation practices. you want to go and find out where we can save money here, let's find out who these 26 people are or those people on the crop insurance program and let's make sure that they are working. otherwise we will cut their benefits. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this unbelievably misguided amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. southerland: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield to the gentleman from washington state whose welfare rolls were recused by over 55% due to the 1996 work requirement, the gentleman from washington. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. reichert: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this amendment. my colleague is ride, the unemployment rate is 7.5%. people want to go back to work. that's what this amendment

does, gets people back to work. the federal government has 83 programs, 83 to help people. now, i'm the chairman of the subcommittee on human resources. we just had a hearing last week. shandae randolph -- i don't have time to yield. shandae randolph testified before our committee she was under a government program. all they did was provide benefits to her. until she got under tanf, that's where she got the help to find a job. we need to help people find jobs, keep jobs, support their families and give them hope. i support this bill wholeheartedly because it gives the american people who are out of work today hope. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: yes, we reduce welfare rolls because we literally throw people off. we did not help them find sustainable jobs. that's why poverty has increased. i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the ranking member of the

committee, mr. peterson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 second. patterson purn i thank the gentlelady and i strong -- mr. peterson: i thank the gentlelady and i strongly oppose this amendment. this amendment breaks our deal that we had and is offensive in the way it treats the unemployed in this country. in short, what this proposal does, it takes money from benefits and hands it over to the states, and they can do with it what they want. it was said earlier in the debate, with no strings attached, no accountability. you know, it's -- this republican congress has been vocal in support of block grants, and i suppose that's why they've supported this amendment. i'd like to point out that it was block granting that was the very reason we got into the liheap situation and the categorical situation that we're trying to attempt in this bill. so vote no on this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from wisconsin has one half minute

remaining. the gentleman from florida has 45 seconds remaining. the gentleman from florida. mr. southerland: thank you, mr. chairman. i now yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from georgia whose welfare rolls were reduced by over 85% in the 1996 work force requirements. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. kingston: i stand in support of the amendment. there's two very major points of it. number one is we cannot continue to deny abled bodied people the dignity of work. there seems to be a belief in the nanny state there's something wrong with requiring abled-bodied people to work. that's what this amendment does. it says, you know what, if you can work you ought to be working so that other people who are unable to, they can get the needed assistance. number two, it gives states flexibility. i trust the people in florida. i trust the people in wisconsin. i trust the people in georgia and florida and all over the country to do what's best for their state. that's what we need in america today is less centralized washington bureaucratic

planners and more state flexibility. because what might work in your state might be different in mine, but this is a requirement for abled-bodied people to get a job in order to receive public assistance benefits. very common sense and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. chairman. i yield the last 30 seconds to our good friend and colleague, mr. welch. the chair: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. welch: i thank the gentlelady. this amendment is not on the level. it uses words that are important to all of us -- work. of course people want to work. but there is no money for a work program. there is an obligation on the person who has no income, who has children to somehow magically create their own work program. any other work programs has to have some support to get people to move from poverty to work. this is a political statement. it's not a work program.

how poor is poor? this is telling folks they're not poor enough. grind them down and their children, 1-year-old children will lose food as a result of this. i yield back. the chair: the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 113-117 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 99 by mr. goodlatte of virginia. amendment number 49 by mr. radel of florida. amendment number 50 by mr. walberg of michigan. amendment number 98 by mr. pitts of pennsylvania. amendment number 100 by mr.

fortenberry of nebraska. amendment number 1101 by mr. huelskamp of kansas. amendment number 102 by mr. southerland of florida. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time of electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 99 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 99 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. goodlatte of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 291. the nays are 135 with one member voting present. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 49 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from florida, mr. radel, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the amendment

prevailed by noise vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 49 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. radel of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]